Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka, mail # dev - Kafka REST interface


+
David Arthur 2012-08-03, 14:41
+
Jonathan Creasy 2012-08-03, 20:13
+
David Arthur 2012-08-06, 12:39
+
Jonathan Creasy 2012-08-06, 18:19
+
David Arthur 2012-08-10, 16:54
+
Jay Kreps 2012-08-10, 19:50
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Kafka REST interface
David Arthur 2012-08-11, 03:15
You make a good point about TCP not being the problem. But rather the complex consumer logic and ZK dependency are barriers to entry for new clients. I'm starting to like the idea of a standalone proxy that uses an existing client (one with batteries included) to simply things for HTTP clients. If this is going into Kafka, I think we should stick with Scala/Java for implementation.

Are there any preferences for what HTTP server is used? Any particular aversion to Jetty?

-David

On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:

> My personal preference would be to have only a single protocol in kafka
> core. I have been down the multiple protocol route and my experience was
> that it adds a lot of burden for each change that needs to be made and a
> lot of complexity to abstract over the different protocols. From the point
> of view of a user they are generally a bit agnostic as to how bytes are
> sent back and forth provided it is reliable and easily implementable in any
> language. Generally they care more about the quality of the client in their
> language of choice.
>
> My belief is that the main benefit of REST is ease of implementing a
> client. But currently the biggest barrier is really the use of zk and
> fairly thick consumer design. So I think the current thinking is that we
> should focus on thinning that out and removing the client-side zk
> dependency. I actually don't think TCP is a huge burden if the protocol is
> simple, and there are actually some advantages (for example the consumer
> needs to consume from multiple servers so select/poll/epoll is natural but
> this is not always available from HTTP client libraries).
>
> Basically this is an area where I think it is best to pick one way and
> really make it really bullet proof rather than providing lots of options.
> In some sense each option tends to increase the complexity of testing
> (since now there are many combinations to try) and also of implementation
> (since now a lot things that were concrete now need to be abstracted away).
>
> So from this perspective I would prefer a standalone proxy that could
> evolve independently rather than retro-fitting the current socket server to
> handle other protocols. There will be some overhead for the extra hop, but
> then there is some overhead for HTTP itself.
>
> This is just my personal opinion, it would be great to hear what other
> think.
>
> -Jay
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:39 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy to collaborate on this, though it's been a while since I've
>> used PHP.
>>
>> From what it looks like, what you have is a true proxy that runs outside
>> of Kafka and translates some REST routes into Kafka client calls. This
>> sounds more in line with what the project page describes. What I have
>> proposed is more like a translation layer between some REST routes and
>> FetchRequests. In this case the client is responsible for managing offsets.
>> Using the consumer groups and ZooKeeper would be another nice way of
>> consuming messages (which is probably more like what you have).
>>
>> Any maintainers have feedback on this?
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Jonathan Creasy wrote:
>>
>>> I have an internal one working and was hoping to have it open sourced in
>>> the next week. The one at Box is based on the CodeIgniter framework, we
>>> have about 45 RESTful interfaces built on this framework so I just put
>>> together another one for Kafka.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are my notes, these were pre-dev so may be a little different than
>>> what we ended up with.
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Restful+API+Proposal
>>>
>>> I will read yours later this afternoon, we should work together.
>>>
>>> -Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:41 AM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to tackle this project (assuming it hasn't been started yet).
>>>>
>>>> I wrote up some initial thoughts here: https://gist.github.com/3248179
+
Taylor Gautier 2012-08-12, 14:39
+
David Arthur 2012-08-24, 16:37
+
David Arthur 2012-09-10, 13:49
+
David Arthur 2012-11-20, 21:08
+
David Arthur 2012-11-20, 22:06
+
Taylor Gautier 2012-11-21, 15:54